|
|
Close Help | ||||||||||||||
|
How CIA destabilisation causes Islamic Fundamentalism
SPEAKING FREELY Iran: The road not taken
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing. Although the whole operation in Iran cost the US less than US$1 million (including money given to mobs and looters to create chaos in the capital), the coup proved to be much more costly for Washington than anyone could have imagined at the time. Today, it is quite clear that that operation paved the way for the Islamic Revolution of 1979, which in turn inspired fundamentalist movements in the Muslim world for decades. In its Cold War against communism, the US staunchly supported the Shah for 37 years, a move that allowed him to imprison, torture and kill dissidents and squash any criticism of the government to the point that the opposition had no other way but to overthrow the Shah's regime. He forcefully implemented his selective modernizing and Westernizing policies, which did not include democracy or liberalism. His zero tolerance approach alienated moderate and democratic dissidents and his anti-religious and de-traditionalization prescription caused the emergence of religious fundamentalism in Iran. In such an environment, it was not surprising that the wide variety of opposition groups (from Marxists to nationalists, to Islamists) eventually united behind Ayatollah Khomeini, a religious and revolutionary figure, whose uncompromising attitude appealed to the masses who vividly remembered how 25 years earlier Mossadegh, a moderate lawyer, had failed to peacefully bring about a government independent from foreign interference. Hence, the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Not having learned from this negative experience, the US continued its destructive policy towards the new regime in Iran by trying to destabilize it. Less than two years after the revolution, in the summer of 1981, Saddam Hussein attacked Iran. Throughout the eight-year war, he enjoyed the strongest support from the US. As the Americans would clearly understand now - as a result of the Americans' "war on terrorism" - the Iran-Iraq war reduced civil liberties in Iran, and gave the government an upper hand to suppress any form of opposition. After the war, some religious-intellectual circles gradually emerged in Iran. Many of the participants were among those who established the Islamic government in 1979. In these circles, new ideas about the role of religion in politics, and the separation of mosque and state emerged. The climax of this intellectual movement was the election of 1997 when Mohammad Khatami, who ran under the platform of civil society and rule of law, surprised the world by winning the presidency. More than 76 percent of the eligible voters participated in this election, out of which 70 percent voted for him. By comparing this election with the 1980 referendum, (when 88 percent of the people participated, and 98 percent of them said "yes" to the establishment of "Islamic Republic") it was obvious that a new political culture had been born in Iran. But it took the Iranian society almost 50 years to be able to create a semi-democratic condition similar to Mossadegh's era. Surprised by the emergence of "democratic elements" in Iran, the Bill Clinton administration modified its approach towards Iran and called the US intervention of 1953 "short-sighted". This shift, however, was rather short-lived. With the slow process of the reform movement in Iran and then the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US, the new administration decided to not only follow the old policy again but to do it in the extreme way: the Bush administration branded Iran part of an axis of evil, along with Iraq and North Korea. Some in Congress even talked about regime change in Iran. Naming Tehran a member of the "axis of evil" in 2001, when even the US State Department is acknowledging that Iran is a kind of democracy, is reminiscent of Jimmy Carter calling it "an island of stability" (just a year before the revolution). The statements are the opposite sides of the same coin. Both ignored the fact that Iran was undertaking a major development. In 1977, Iran was on the verge of major turmoil. Today, Iranian society is experiencing a movement as pivotal for the Muslim world as the Reformation was to Christianity. This movement, if it succeeds, could affect the whole Muslim world and lead them toward democracy, without repeating the same experiences of Iran. Today, the US is investing $4 billion a month, and one American life per day in Iraq to materialize the dream of creating a democratic model for the Middle East. Iran and Iraq could provide a great political laboratory for the US to examine how its involvement or lack of involvement in a country could affect that country's path toward democracy. Americans who go to Iran are often surprised to see how friendly Iranians are towards them. Many believe that the Iranian people are the most pro-American in the Muslim world. If this is the case, then it certainly has something to do with the absence of the US from Iran for a quarter century. By looking at the rest of the Muslim world, we can see a very strong but negative correlation between Washington's support of the Muslim governments and the popularity of the US among the people of those countries. The overflowing anti-American sentiments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, all traditional key allies of the White House, are three examples. The same is true in all other 53 Islamic nations. If in the past, Washington, in the name of "war against communism", was supporting Middle Eastern and South Asian dictators, now in the name of "war against terrorism", it is increasingly backing the brutal governments of Central Asia, whose human rights records are among the worse in the world. Therefore, it's not surprising that according to recent reports, the fundamentalist movements in this region are flourishing and US involvement is only helping these movements to become stronger and more popular. If the US follows its old policy and does not force these evil governments to respect human rights and the rule of law, the moderate elements of the opposition groups will be marginalized by the revolutionaries and "a second Iran" could very well be on its way. Some policymakers in Washington justify the current policy by arguing that a lack of US support will lead to the establishment of Islamic theocracies in these countries. But both support and lack of support could lead to that end. It would be just a matter of time. However, there is a third way. Through international organizations, including the United Nations, the US should hold these governments responsible for their domestic as well as their foreign policies. The US should abstain from getting involved in political conflicts within these countries and instead, by using multilateral approaches to put pressure on the governments (whether secular or theocratic) and indiscriminately force them to respect human rights and rule of law. This could provide a peaceful environment in which a democratic political culture could take root. Had the US adopted such an approach half a century ago, Iran's path toward democracy could have been shortened, more peaceful, and less costly. It would have undoubtedly been in the interests of the United States too. Mohammad Ayatollahi Tabaar is a PhD student in the Department of Government at Georgetown University. Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing. |
